If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Originally posted by: TravishImho Linux will never take over MS as OS.

I presume you meant to say it will never take over from Microsoft offerings as the dominant OS, and I ask, why not?

[...]
Linux is cheaper, and support for Linux is relatively cheap as well. The problem is the bulk of the users who are unwilling for change. I work in a company with 800 employees, and I dare not think about changing form Windows to Linux. The people in my company are not interested in IT, Linux, Windows or whatever. They are only interested in doing their job quicker using a computer.

What users are interested in is irrelevant in a corporate setting. It's not their equipment, it is the company's. It is a company decision, and users live with it regardless. Users may well want to do their jobs quicker and more efficiently, but this could be accomplished using either Operating System. The amount of work would vary with the needs as has been previously stated numerous times, but it is still a decision that should not be related to "user interest". If a user can accomplish their tasks as fast or faster on a Linux desktop compared to a Windows desktop, what does it matter?

They have been using Windows over the past years (at home or at work) so they are very reluctant to change, because it would require an effort for them. Windows would not require that (initial) effort, because they are already used to it. It's an effort they are not willing to take (since they are not interested in IT).

Well, apart from my point above about it not being their decision, I wonder if you have in fact had much experience with user reaction. Have you actually loaded up a Linux box and showed it to a user? In my experiences, it takes a very minimal effort to "learn linux" as an end user becuase a lot of the software developers of open sourced projects like Evolution are mindful of the fact that the big players offer certain features, and have a certain look and feel to their software, and do their best to emulate it. With KDE, you can make it so the user doesn't even know they aren't using Windows untli such time as they try to do something like run a game they downloaded (which they shouldn't be doing on work time anyway, right?).

What I'm trying to say here is that Windows will always be the major player because most people are not interested in IT and most people have been using Windows for years. So why change? That's the genius about Microsoft, they are excellent marketeers and sales people, no matter if there product is good or bad.

The fact is Linux support is growing in many economically deprived countries. There will be employees in under ten years coming from Asia and South America who as students were exposed primarily to Linux, which will bring more use and familiarity with it, and in turn effect change. Whether we see a lot of that in North America remains to be seen, but it will have an impact in a global sense.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting you should switch, but I am saying that it isn't as "incapable" of an operating system from a user perspective as you might think.

Originally posted by: pooh sun tzu 1. Windows may be more expensive than Linux. Linux may be more expensive than Windows. You know what? Who gives a fsck which is more expensive and which is cheaper. NO one that has anything better to do with their lives, that's who

There are people to whom this matters as they will have a direct benefit/detriment from implementing either solution. Requirements do vary by needs, that's a given, but looking at TCO is a good measuring stick of where you will start baseline-wise.

2. Stop bitching and arguing over fake statistics. Most people here are complaining and theorizing about situations they have never experienced nor had interaction with. Stop it.

I don't see any bitching, and I do see some healthy arguing, so what's wrong with that? It's not being personal, each person is arguing their own point of view (as you are here), I see no reason this needs to stop. If it continues, you might even learn something, which is the whole point of conversing and arguing points in the first place.

Some companies will find Windows more expensive because of licensing, product porting and employee training, while other companies may find Linux more expensive for the exact same (don't bullshit me about licensing either, read enterprise level OS licensing options). Each company will assess what is best/cheaper for them, and arguing for a god damn answer it all universal to the question is not going to happen.

Those aren't the only issues in converting/implementing, those are in fact the quantifiable ones, where fact comes into play and the numbers will compare favourably for Linux (at least, in my experience). There are certain circumstances that this does not apply to, where costs of one system will far outweigh the other, but for the bulk of companies (say, those with more than one server) Linux usually ends up being cheaper in the Licensing/Training/Hiring column.

3. If you are considering an OS change on an entire company level, you had damn well better look beyond costs alone. Usablity, speed, comfort, productability, customization, portability, and so forth need to be primary concerns.

These are other factors in TCO, which is why it is a reliable number. Reimplementing software, ensuring comfort of users in performing their tasks, etc., all belong to the varies-per-company category of TCO.

4. Which brings us back to here. What was the point of this conversation? This entire thread?! It makes no difference which is more expensive because each cost situation will vary per user/company/idealology and buisness practices.

True, but as in all things generalities apply to a lot of people (otherwise they wouldn't be generalities), so it is perfectly useful and reasonable to compare two things that commonly affect the companies in question. This isn't really all that different from examining the benefits of switching your network from IPv4 to IPv6. I don't get why it's a big deal to you that people are arguing about TCO of various operating systems. Perhaps you could explain it, if you care to do so?

Originally posted by: Nihil
1. There is no such thing as a free meal.

Sure there is, soup kitchens and food banks operate under this premise.

2. The quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.

This may apply in certain industries, but in software it is generally irrelevant because of how frequent changes and updates occur. Windows 2000 has had numerous updates that both change the quality, generally improving it, and by and large come at no cost. The quality at time of purchase doesn't reflect the quality of the software now.

3. "Securityology" is a new way of spelling "Mythology"
4. The "bean counters" rule our lives (unfortunately).

Beancounters only rule our lives when beans are the issue.

Chris Shepherd
The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
\"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?

1. There is no such thing as a free meal.
2. The quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.
3. "Securityology" is a new way of spelling "Mythology"
4. The "bean counters" rule our lives (unfortunately).

on bulleye.

Pooh has made a point too. Its a matter about what is the current status of the company. Its use to be cheaper stay on the same course instead change it.

The cost of changing isnt only on IT. In fact, They are the smaller part. Most of the cost is about re-training the users (*nix to windows or vice versa). Please remember that 99% of companies are not IT related so they dont care about IT. TCO is used to measure costs just because we allways think about "IT costs" and not "Company costs".

About School, here we use to train students on both O/S (no Windows/*nix Jihad here). Even on other areas. They learn to use Windows Desktops with "companions" and learn to use a linux distro (Conectiva in our case) with the appropriate companions. Its a very good experience.

Since here we have a program to allow to "poor people" gain access to private colleges, we have got students (all areas) that never had contact with a computer.
We did a kind of survey with those guys, since they were not "corrupt" previously

For those guys, use Linux or Windows doesnt matter. For their usage O/S + office tools is enough to their purposes (doesnt matter if is ms office, open office, etc)...

Remember again they are "regular users" &lt;--- non IT

The only problem they reported is about "portability". Sometimes they see that they cant transfer files from one platform to another.

They asked us: "There is no standard? isnt easier if a standard for those file is defined?"

Agreeing with what has been said, and it really it horses for courses. That IDC study has already got in trouble with various organizations due to the fact that the testing was done on two completely different setups (if I recall what i read the Linux boxes were about twice as expensive as the Windows boxes to begin with).

TCO is such a fudgy stat, and can take into account all kinds of factors, the bottom line is that in the end (hopefully) companies will size up what best suits there needs and take that, all the Operating systems have pros and cons, so it does come down to each org. to figure it out. And costs must play a part, moreso now then ever, given the recession the US is coming out of it very few big IT shops are going to undergo massive new OS procurement, and most of these are (as far as I know) running Windows or Solaris,l and then using some of the more less popular OS's (AIX, AS400, OS90, etc...) (just building on what Pooh said).

Current stats point to an east/west split in the use of Windows and Linux, with many eastern economies adopting Linux, and the west sticking with Windows, Solaris etc...

This whole thread reminds me of the introduction of the IBM PC. I was convinced that there were better technical solutions, including Zenith and Mac, but you know what? Business opted for Big Blue for a whole host of reasons that seemed good to them, and here we are discussing the best operating system for IBM PC clones.

It would be nice if technicans were able to make rational technical decisions and that would be the end of it. Unfortunately, history is not on our side.

Could that be because marketing is on their side? How much crap, (and good stuff), has passed before our eyes being toted as the best thing since sliced bread that has fallen by the wayside.... Disappeared in the bit-bucket of quaint but unusable technology? Sometimes you look back and think, "hmmm.... That would have been nice in this situation..."

Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you..... \"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides

Could that be because marketing is on their side? How much crap, (and good stuff), has passed before our eyes being toted as the best thing since sliced bread that has fallen by the wayside.... Disappeared in the bit-bucket of quaint but unusable technology? Sometimes you look back and think, "hmmm.... That would have been nice in this situation..."

VHS vis Betamax.

Betamax was by far the better product. It lost out to vhs............Why?

What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad. - Dave Barry

Some people are just naturally stupid. Example.
I work in the printing industry. The guy in the parts department tells me this story.
We have this printing press. It has a computer. The CGA monitor on it dies.
He researches on the net and finds the exact original type, brand new unused,
for four hundred dollars. His supervisor says "no, we're getting it from the
press manufacturer", $1500. Why? Some clueless suit gets a warm fuzzy
feeling dealing with his fav vendor.

Whaddaya gonna do?

Price doesn't matter when it isn't your money
The bigger the company, the worse it gets.
They buy windows because someone "likes and trusts"
the Microsoft salesman. Nobody really knows
the difference in cost between windows and Linux,
they just play hunches.

Originally posted by: Tiger SharkCould that be because marketing is on their side? How much crap, (and good stuff), has passed before our eyes being toted as the best thing since sliced bread that has fallen by the wayside.... Disappeared in the bit-bucket of quaint but unusable technology? Sometimes you look back and think, "hmmm.... That would have been nice in this situation..."

That sounds like most old timer Amiga or NeXT users I know (even an OS/2 guy).

Originally posted by: jinxyVHS vis Betamax.
Betamax was by far the better product. It lost out to vhs............Why?

Betamax was better quality (and only initially, VHS caught up in quality very quickly), but it lacked the superior recording length VHS had, which made releasing movies on Beta impractical. Most of the broadcasting industry setups I've seen have Betamax as their primary recording media and it is very suitable for such situations. For being able to buy your favourite movies for home however, it wasn't a good solution.

Chris Shepherd
The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
\"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?

Sure there is, soup kitchens and food banks operate under this premise.

So do a lot of marketeers ..........SOMEONE has to pay, and the recipient pretty soon becomes dependent.

Beancounters only rule our lives when beans are the issue

I have never encountered an organisation that was not under BUDGETARY CONTROL, nor one that had a bottomless pit for a budget, so beancounters rule our lives most of the time.

IT generally has to fight harder than most for its slice of the cake, generally because we are trying to replace or update something that is already working. Also, we are an overhead, it is damn difficult to produce a business case that shows a plausible positive payback.

Even if IT takes the hit for any hardware and software and maintenance you come to "User Training"...............now this is traditionally the responsibility of the user departments, or in a bucket under HR......................just try spending a significant amout against their cost centres, and you will learn how a crash test dummy feels...................you hit a brick wall

Another consideration is that senior management will be mortally afraid of the "business impact" of changes as fundamental as an operating system.

As for software quality...............it is important, your commercial systems must be flexible, robust and able to handle the volumes. With apps like CAD it is paramount! as we are talkiing core functionality.